Securitizing Berlin: The Legacy of the Iron Curtain EKATERINA MIZROKHI URBAN STUDIES, LEVEL III, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO Abstract I. Introduction Since the Cold War, the city of Berlin has experi- To fully understand Berlin as a globalized city re- enced profound forces of globalization, facilitated by the quires an examination of the securitizing infl uence of the movement of people, capital and ideas across its borders. Berlin Wall. The Wall was constructed by the Soviets at the Richard Weizsaecker once said, “…in good and evil, Berlin height of the Cold War in 1961, separating the Allied forces is the trustee of German history, which has left its scars in the West from the Soviet forces in the East. This barrier here as nowhere else.”1 The city is ground zero for some bisected Berlin and was heavily securitized with guard tow- of the most infl uential confl icts of the 20th century, and it ers, trenches and death strips*, resulting in a splintering of is this complicated history that gives Berlin its unique global the city centre.2 Berlin was marked by a “concrete physical identity. Through a literature review, this paper will analyze scar four metres high” that partitioned the city into East how the Berlin Wall affected the way in which the city of and West.3 Berlin had morphed into a division between Berlin participated in the process of globalization. The se- two ideologies: capitalism and communism. The Wall was curitization of Berlin by means of the Wall was responsible dismantled in 1989, and although the city has been offi cially for uneven fl ows of capital, people, and ideas into the two unifi ed for a quarter of a century, the legacy of the Berlin halves of the city. Even long after German Reunifi cation, Wall persists to this day. The securitization of the city by the peculiar geographic legacies of the Berlin Wall perpetu- way of the Berlin Wall has resulted in a legacy of uneven ate an informal division between East and West Berlin that geographies of globalization due to the different ways East persists to this day. Berlin and West Berlin experienced the global fl ows of capital, people and ideas. Uneven Flows of Capital 1 Ladd, Brian. The Ghosts of Berlin: Confronting German History in the Urban Landscape. (Chicago, IL: U of Chicago. 1997). 3. *Aside from the symbolic concrete fence of the Berlin Wall, the area adja- cent to it called the “death strip” contained electric fences, trenches, beds of nails, and was constantly patrolled by border guards. 2Coaffee, Jon. and Murakami Wood, David. “Security is Coming Home: Rethinking Scale and Constructing Resilience in the Global Urban Response to Terrorist Risk.” International Relations. 20(4). (2006). 509. 3Saunders, Anna. “Remembering Cold War Division: Wall Remnants and Border Monuments in Berlin”. Journal of Contemporary European Studies. (2009). 17:1. 10. | 20 | II. Uneven Flow of Capital continues to informally divide the city along East-West divisions. The securitized separation of Berlin by way of the Berlin Wall is responsible for uneven global capital III. Uneven Flow of People fl ows, which privileged the economic development of West Berlin. East Berlin was under the socialist regime As a measure of securitization, the Berlin Wall of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), who was largely meant to control the inward and outward rejected Western models of market economies.4 West fl ow of people. The legacy of the Berlin Wall resulted Berlin, however, existed under a system of market capi- in distinct patterns of migration and settlement in the talism, profi ting from a 30-year head start that allowed city, which continue to perpetuate the informal divide for the establishment of a strong corporate presence between East and West. The most evident contrast is in and integration into the globalizing economic market the ethnic composition of migrants. Of the one million of the 20th century. Come reunifi cation in 1990, east- migrants living in Berlin today, West Berlin is home to ern industries had to compete with their more effi cient approximately 300 000 Turkish migrants who arrived in and established western counterparts, in which many West Germany as guest workers.14 To this day, Turkish eastern German companies went bankrupt5, while some immigrants distribute themselves unevenly across the disappeared completely.6 To this day, very few company city, clustering in enclaves that are historically localized in headquarters are located in the East, as it lacks the global West Berlin. These isolated groupings tend to function as functioning capabilities, such as trade and fi nancial infl u- parallel societies that fi nd social and economic support ence that global corporate headquarters require.7 Gov- networks within their own ethnic communities, creating ernment subsidies worth hundreds of billions of euros “self-organized living environments that avoid communi- have not been able to successfully alleviate the disparity8, cation with the majority society.”15 These parallel societ- further perpetuating East Berlin’s isolation from the glo- ies of Turkish migrants experience increasing impov- balized economic system of capital fl ows compared to erishment and alienation16, which results in pockets of West Berlin. Capitalism proved to be a better system for socioeconomic disparity throughout the city, along with creating wealth and raising living standards than Soviet the development of massive class inequalities in employ- communism9, but even post-reunifi cation, East Berlin’s ment, education, security, housing and the right to the wages and pensions are signifi cantly lower than in the city.17 Conversely, the Berlin Wall isolated East Germany West.10 Additionally, the unemployment rate in Berlin is from everyone but the Communist Bloc, which is why not evenly spread, with the former West experiencing approximately 500 000 Russian, Polish and Vietnamese far better employment levels than the East.11 Although migrants are found concentrated in East Berlin.18 The securitizing the city limited global capital fl ows and eco- distinct demographic compositions and spatial organiza- nomic prosperity in East Berlin, the city has made efforts tion of migrants has turned these ethnic enclaves into to improve economic inequality. In fact, since reunifi ca- “diasporic spaces”19 that boast distinct cultures, norms tion, West Berlin has dedicated more than $2 trillion in and institutions in both East and West. In order to fully economic aid in an attempt to help the East12, and East understand the history, patterns, and implications of mi- Berlin has made some progress in catching up to the per gration in both East and West Berlin, it must be explored capita income of the West.13 Nonetheless, the securitiza- as both a multicultural and securitized city. Although the tion of Berlin and the uneven capital fl ows have cre- Wall tore through the heart of Berlin, it planted the seed ated a polarized landscape of economic prosperity that for its complex multicultural identity. 4Hardt, John. “East-Central European Economies in Transition”. (1995). 10 Kratke, 515. ISBN 1-56324-612-0 11 Noack, 3. 5 Noack, Rick. “The Berlin Wall fell 25 years ago, but Germany is still 12 Matthews, 4. divided.” The Washington Post. October 31, 2014. Accessed October 10, 13 Noack, 3. 2015. http://www.washingtonpost.com/the-berlin-wall-fell-25-years- 14 Kil, Wolfgang. “From Kreuzberg to Marzahn: New Migrant Communities ago-but-germany-is-still-divided/. 2. in Berlin.” German Politics and Society. (2006). 81:24. No. 4. 99. 6 Kratke, Stefan. “City of Talents? Berlin’s Regional Economy, Socio-Spatial 15 Ibid, 99. Fabric and ‘Worst Practice’ Urban Governance.” International Journal of 16 Ibid, 100. Urban and Regional Research. (2004). 28:3. 514. 17 Balibar, Etienne. “Uprisings in the Banlieues”. Constellations. 14(1). 7 Beaverstock, Jonathan. “A Roster of World Cities.” Cities, 16(6). (1999). (2007). 57. 469. 18 Kil, 113. 8 Dick, Wolfgang. Germans still have ‘walls in heads’. Deutsche Welle. March 19 Ibid, 97. 10, 2013. Accessed October 10, 2015. http://www.dw.de/germans-still- have-walls-in-heads/a-17131880, 3. 9 Matthews, Chris. “Poor Germany: Why the east will never catch up to the west.” Time Inc: Fortune. November 9, 2014. Accessed October 10, 2015. | 21 | http://fortune.com/2014/11/09/germany-east-west-economy. 4. Nevertheless, it is potentially limiting to conceptualize distances during the rapidly globalizing 20th century, the securitization of Berlin and the fl ow of people in the securitizing infl uence of the Berlin Wall facilitated a a strictly binary manner. Although the Iron Curtain is time-space decompression that slowed the global fl ow of arguably one of the most commanding symbols of the ideas into the East along with the West. The movement 20th century, it is crucial to understand that it was not of ideas as a function of globalization forms the founda- an impermeable membrane, and that the experiences of tion of Berlin’s identity as it is known today. The notion easterners and westerners were not completely separate. of a modern, unifi ed Berlin is one that implies the vic- Countless documented cases exist of people crossing the tory of capitalism over communism – it is the infi ltration border in both directions. While three million East Ger- of Western ideals into what once was a largely socialist mans may have crossed into the West as refugees, there city.25 were still more than half a million West German idealists who crossed into the East, believing in the promises of The Berlin Wall was not just a physical barrier communism.20 Ultimately, the Berlin Wall’s securitizing that partitioned the city; it marked the division between force regulated the global fl ows of people, facilitating a capitalism and communism, who “rubbed against one reshuffl ing of Berlin’s population according to ideolo- another like seismic plates at the fl ashpoint.”26 This clash gies, and creating distinct patterns of migration and can still be felt today, due to the construction of par- ethnic segregation that exist to this day.